2012/1/5 David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org>:
>
> Janek Warchoł <janek.lilyp...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> 2012/1/4 David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org>:
>>> \layout {
>>> \layout-from { \compressFullBarRests
>>> \override Score.SpacingSpanner #'common-shortest-duration =
>>> #(ly:make-moment 6 10)
>>> }
>>> etc...
>>> }
>>
>> ok... However - i'm very sorry to say this :/ - it would be better if
>> i wouldn't have to type \layout-from at all.
>
> \layout is not the place to accept arbitrary music.
i understand. I think my answer is "maybe \layout could work
differently than now"? [1]
>> I know that it's not much typing, and that \layout-from is an
>> improvement, but from the end-user perspective it's in fact PITA: when
>> use \layout, when \layout-from?
>
> \layout-from takes music and extracts context definitions.
Say this to a LilyPond newbie. He'll understand 2 words: "music", "and".
>> :( Again, i'm very sorry beacause from the programmer's perspective
>> it's nothing, but for simple users understanding what \layout does is
>> hard enough;
>
> \layout definitions don't have a syntax compatible with music.
That's exactly what worries me as an end-user who doesn't like to
think when he doesn't absolutely have to. It's similar to
set-override-tweak problem: for you it's obvious that these are 3
different things, and when to use what. For me it seems like
unnecessary multiplication of commands that seem to work similar (i.e.
they set some property/parameter/whatever).
> If \layout accepted music and mostly ignored it, simple users would not
> understand what it does, and advanced users would not either.
>
>> And i want to enter notes, not some \overridden << \layoutish
>> ##Scheme## >> :( :( :(
>
> Nobody keeps you from entering \compressFullBarRests and stuff right in
> your music. That's their default place of writing them.
>
> As a programmer, I prefer putting the declarations where they make sense
> and apply document-wide. Nobody forces you to do it in that manner if
> you prefer jamming everything explicitly into the music which, after
> all, is the designed user interface for it.
David, you are of course 100% right and i don't want to deny you!
Surely it doesn't make any sense to put declarations intended for
document-wide settings inside actual music declarations.
What i want to say is, i'm afraid you might have forgotten how it
feels to be a non-programmer. It's not a joke that for average person
that wants to produce some notation, it's hard enough to use text
input. Let me rephrase that: take a random person who searches for
music notation program and stumbles over out site. *Learning how to
create* this input
\relative c, {
\clef "bass"
\time 3/4
\tempo "Andante" 4 = 120
c2 e8 c'
g'2.
f4 e d
c4 c, r
}
is a big enough challenge for such a person. I guess 50% fails, not
because they're idiots, but because it really is hard if you haven't
done it before (and very few ever wrote code). I don't like it, but
that's the world we live in.
cheers,
Janek
[1] I think that a more detailed discussion should be a part of GLISS.
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
